Butt hurt snow flakes? We were made to handle the last POS with kid gloves. People that spouted off on the internet were jailed.
Nothing like this. Serious double standard here.
Nothing like this. Serious double standard here.
Yup. Butthurt snowflakes being triggered by some no account comedian and her tasteless act...and then doubling down with mambypamby "But, but he/she did this xx years ago and they freaked out."
If you'd have just ignored the dumb ***** it wouldn't have even been a story.
If you'd have just ignored the dumb ***** it wouldn't have even been a story.
I'd say her public apology for crossing the line (admission of guilt), took her from unverified to not credible.
Its not a matter of the comedian making a scene. Its the fact that she did it and was not dealt with just like commoners were when we were talking about obama. You are right. She is a loser. But fair play is fair play.
No, it isn't. It's acting like petulant children, "Well Johnny got in trouble for this so why doesn't she get in trouble too...", spoken in my best little brat voice.
It seems these days, folks who love to rant about hipster snowflakes and irrational triggered youth actually spend a good deal of time exhibiting the exact same behavior, just about different inane subjects.
who was jailed?
"Civil court" is the critical distinction. Being subject to civil suit isn't an action by the government; it's an action by another private party. You may have to make restitution to that party for damages you cause him, but you won't be jailed or have to pay a fine to the people at large (the government).
Yes, but that's a very narrow category. The old "fire in a crowded theater" standard doesn't meet it (and, in fact, the author of those words, Oliver Wendell Holmes, distanced himself from them in his later opinions).
We can, and I do. Embolden somebody else to do something similarly (or more) offensive? Okay; all those offended, put on your big-girl panties next time. As to what the founders envisioned, well, you should see how they spoke of each other. Reason had a great video on it; I'll try to see if I can find it. And we've already discussed the effigy issue, but you have to remember that in the context of the time: our president is a symbol and the leader of our country, but back then, kings still ruled by divine right. To us, killing the president is murder, if quite aggravated; to them, it was high treason, just the same as levying war against the sovereign or giving aid and comfort to his enemies. Our president is a symbol of the country; their king was the country. Keep that in mind as you ponder those effigies.I just think there should be a few more limitations regarding incitement in cases such as this Griffin fiasco. Without repercussions, I suspect it may very well embolden others to do something similar (or perhaps worse). I'm pretty sure this wasn't the "freedom of speech" this country's founders envisioned.
But I'm done. We can always agree to disagree.
In short, the founders were not nearly so polite and reserved as we remember them.
not to mention that public figures do not enjoy the same protections as private individuals when it comes to libel and slander.
